[Malum Prohibitum]

(c) A license holder . . . shall be authorized to carry a weapon . . . in every location in this state not listed in subsection (b) or prohibited by subsection (e) of this Code section; provided, however, that private property owners or persons in legal control of private property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such private property shall have the right to exclude or eject a person who is in possession of a weapon or long gun on their private property in accordance with paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of Code Section 16-7-21 . . .

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The old law, before the legislature amended it, did not mention the word private in places describing leases.

See lines 186 through 189 of HB 60.

Link to HB 60. http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20132014/HB/60

Now compare how the old law would have read to how it reads now. Ask the judge, "What exactly was the legislature trying to do? What evil was it addressing? What other possible meaning could the legislature have intended?"

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The old law read like this:

(c) A license holder . . . shall be authorized to carry a weapon . . . in every location in this state not listed in subsection (b) of this Code section; provided, however, that private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property . . .


I think that is a pretty big difference.

Do judges?

 

[Nemo]

in every location in this state not listed in subsection (b) of this Code section--- This part not in dispute.

(b) persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access-- This is the key. Simple argument is that because it is discussed, it means different thing than rest of it. Private organization is in control by the lease and they can control access because of lease then they can prohibit carry.

I can easily see where a judge can agree with that simple argument. Any anyone who has any desire to restrict carry can easily hide behind that, as they also hide behind a badge.

Nemo

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

(b) persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access-- This is the key. Simple argument is that because it is discussed, it means different thing than rest of it. Private organization is in control by the lease and they can control access because of lease then they can prohibit carry.

I can easily see where a judge can agree with that simple argument. Any anyone who has any desire to restrict carry can easily hide behind that, as they also hide behind a badge.

Nemo, that is the old law.

The legislature went in and inserted the word "private" several times. Why?

It now reads that "persons in control of PRIVATE property through a lease" or "any other agreement to control access to such PRIVATE property" shall have the right to use a certain subsection of the criminal trespass law to exclude or eject carriers from "their PRIVATE property" - there it is again!

So, persons in control of private property through a lease can eject carriers. This section now says nothing at all about persons in control of PUBLIC property through a lease.

It used to say if you have a lease or other agreement to control access you could "forbid the possession" of guns.

It is completely different now.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I can't think of another plausible explanation for the changes the legislature made, except that lessees of public property do not have such a right anymore than the public property owner does.

I have never heard any argument from those who conclude that lessees of public property may exclude carriers as to what this legislative change means.

Opposing attorneys and hostile judges just sort of skip over addressing the legislative change.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

See page 7. The Wings over North Georgia Air Show judge claims that the air show tenant has the right to exclude spectators with guns, but never addresses the legislative change to 16-11-127(c).
http://www.georgiacarry.com/county/floyd_preemption/Order_on_Motion_for_Interl_Inj.pdf

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Somebody help me here. What other possible explanation could there be for the legislature's amendment to the law? What were they trying to accomplish?

 

[gunsmoker]

I sent the following message to the Bibb County Sheriff's Office, having seen Sheriff David Daniels on the TV news saying that the gun ban can be enforced if the "entity that is in charge of the venue" puts up signage.

Sheriff Davis, you were on T.V. news the other day saying that if the organizers of the Cherry Blossom Festival want to ban guns, even legally-carried guns by Georgia Weapons License (GWL) holders, they could. Apparently a couple days ago a family of 3 adults was detained by your deputies for having one or more handguns (with the proper licenses) at the Festival, and they were told that they could not do that.

Code section 16-11-173 preempts any level of government other than the State legislature itself from passing any gun carry restrictions, and Code sections 16-11-126(d) and 16-11-127(c) were amended a couple of years ago to limit use of the "criminal trespass" law as an enforcement tool for anti-gun policies to only private property owners.

It's clear that between these three laws, and the general announcement (found in 16-11-127 (c)) that GWL holders can carry their guns in any and every location in the state not made off-limits in 16-11-127, and that the bottom line is that only private facilities and events held on private property can have a "rule" against weapons that can be enforced by officers of the government, such as the Criminal Trespass law.

 

[HCountyGuy]

Very well written.

However, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess any response given will be an eloquently written substitution for a single-finger gesture.

 

[Tinkerhell]

I've been down there twice at lunch time OC, gnawing on a turkey leg and drinking sweet tea. Haven't had anyone say anything to me yet. Don't know that I'll be back down there again.

 

[Neo]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...hool-superintendent-principal-confront-moms-over-jesus-lunch.html?intcmp=hphz03

This has the same problem as well about people leasing
public property. Just in case you don't want to read the
whole article,here is the part i am talking about.

The district also believes that the public park is technically a part of the campus. They have a lease agreement with the city that allows them to use the park during school hours. So the district contends the moms and their offspring are technically on school property.

"The parents contend that it is their First Amendment Right to provide free food and hold a religiously oriented event on this property during school hours," the administrators wrote. "The District believes that we have jurisdiction of this leased property, which is part of our campus."

The moms believe that even though there is a lease agreement - that doesn't make the public space off-limits.

"Fireman's Park -- a public park owned by the City of Middleton -- remains accessible to everyone in the public for the purposes of assembly and free speech," they wrote in a statement. "By law, the lease agreement between the city and the School District of Middleton does not privatize the park. The City of Middleton has sent us a letter this week and acknowledged our rental agreement of the pavilion at Fireman's Park."

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

I sent the following message to the Bibb County Sheriff's Office, having seen Sheriff David Daniels on the TV news saying that the gun ban can be enforced if the "entity that is in charge of the venue" puts up signage.

Sheriff Davis, you were on T.V. news the other day saying that if the organizers of the Cherry Blossom Festival want to ban guns, even legally-carried guns by Georgia Weapons License (GWL) holders, they could. Apparently a couple days ago a family of 3 adults was detained by your deputies for having one or more handguns (with the proper licenses) at the Festival, and they were told that they could not do that.

Code section 16-11-173 preempts any level of government other than the State legislature itself from passing any gun carry restrictions, and Code sections 16-11-126(d) and 16-11-127(c) were amended a couple of years ago to limit use of the "criminal trespass" law as an enforcement tool for anti-gun policies to only private property owners.

It's clear that between these three laws, and the general announcement (found in 16-11-127 (c)) that GWL holders can carry their guns in any and every location in the state not made off-limits in 16-11-127, and that the bottom line is that only private facilities and events held on private property can have a "rule" against weapons that can be enforced by officers of the government, such as the Criminal Trespass law.

Did you ever hear back from the Sheriff?

 

[gunsmoker]

Nope.
I think some locals from Bibb County should follow-up with the Sheriff.
It's not my place to tell the Sheriff what to do. I'm 150+ miles away, and I don't expect to be attending many events on public property in Bibb County.
But a county resident, a local taxpaying citizen, a registered voter in the area... that's a person local officials should listen to.

 

[gsusnake]

I would but I have since relocated.

 

[mountainpass]

One of the folks detained involved in a deadly road rage shooting in Macon.

Please someone pull the quotes for me.

http://www.macon.com/news/local/crime/article107849097.html

 

[CoffeeMate]

On March 29, Hollingsworth was detained after a vendor at the Cherry Blossom Festival reported seeing him and another man passing a gun back and forth, according to an incident report from the Bibb County sheriff's office.

Deputies walked up to the men and asked if they had a concealed weapon. Hollingsworth said yes, and he was detained and his weapon was taken from him, the report said.

The men "were being very loud and stating they had permits and that we were embarrassing them," a deputy sheriff's report said.

Hollingsworth's mother, Tammy Hollingsworth, told deputies she also had a gun in her purse. The deputies took her gun and she was also detained, the report said.

Deputies ran background checks on Hollingsworth, his mother and the other man, and made sure they were licensed to carry. The checks came back clean, the report said, but Hollingsworth and his friend were "asked to leave due to their behavior."

"All suspects were advised that it is illegal to carry a firearm unsecured (not in a holster)," the report said.

The confrontation between the Epps and Hollingsworth began on Eisenhower Parkway, a witness said, about a mile west from the scene, toward Interstate 475, the sheriff deputy's report said. The witness said Epps had been tailgating Hollingsworth as they traveled eastbound. At some point, Epps stopped his car to get something out of the trunk.

Words were exchanged at the stoplight.

"Supposedly, the victim pointed his pistol at the suspect through the window, and the suspect fired several shots into the victim's vehicle, striking him several times," a deputy noted in the report.

.....

 

[CoffeeMate]

(Transferred from another thread)

Video at link...
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/22670020/gun-violence-rally-held-in-atlanta

They talk about this as if they're trying to stamp out polio or something.

So... Felons, no guns. Mentally ill, no guns... Those with wives who are about to file for divorce, no guns -- and not just no new purchases, we'd have to go confiscate them before she can file for divorce, right?

What about the untold numbers of people who go through a divorce with no gun violence whatsoever? Gotta leave them all defenseless in the face of violent crime too, right? ... Maybe not the wives, that is. They still need their guns 'cause of those evil husbands. In fact, better just lock up all the husbands whenever a woman is unhappy, just to be sure... right?

:facepalm:

'Cause you know, it's everyone else who has to pay for her marrying a psycho... (or for turning him into a psycho).

http://www.refinery29.com/2016/10/1...-domestic-violence-clinton-response?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitter_share

Seven years ago, I finally got the nerve to leave my abusive husband. After a particularly nasty assault, I went to the police and got a protective order against him, hoping that would help keep my infant daughter and me safe.Protective orders should prevent domestic abusers from buying guns. But in Michigan, as in the majority of states, it is so easy to buy a gun online or from a private seller, no questions asked. My decision to involve law enforcement slowed him down only marginally.

In most states, the law has not kept up with the times. Convicted domestic abusers who are married to, live with, or have a child with their victim cannot pass a background check. But if an abuser is just a dating partner, their ability to buy a gun remains unrestricted. That's what's known as "the boyfriend loophole," and it is deadly. Additionally, some states have what's known as a "surrender policy," which requires abusers to give up their guns when they're convicted of domestic violence. That, too, seems like an obvious step. I would love to hear the candidates discuss it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

One of the folks detained involved in a deadly road rage shooting in Macon.

Please someone pull the quotes for me.

http://www.macon.com/news/local/crime/article107849097.html

Well, the deceased stopped his Honda, opens the trunk, and gets "something." He then pulls up beside the Dodge, points a pistol, and get shot dead by one of the folks detained at the festival for passing around a handgun. This is all according to a witness (not the deceased or the man who shot him) who also videotaped it. The police have the video.

Sounds like the deceased picked the wrong man to threaten with death, but we'll see as more comes out.

 

[Feral]

Necropost

This festival is drawing closer. It's obviously legal to carry in the park.

I intend to OC. Should I expect any issues? I know things are gray right now with private entities leasing public land.